Hi, Am Thu, den 03.06.2004 um 14:24 Uhr +0200 schrieb nf: > On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 12:06, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-05-31 at 20:13, nf wrote: > > > I have posted this to the kernel list. Might be interesting for the nautilus > > > developers as well. Perhaps this could be used by "fam" instead of dnotify. > > > Cause i don't see any problems with delivering events from a "polling" mechanism. > > > But i don't know if we really need fam in this case, or rather use it from > > > gnome-vfs directly. > > > > Not that this might not be a good idea, but your measurements are a bit > > skewed. I'm pretty sure that events could be done in a way that uses > > less resources (and doesn't block unmount), and what you're measuring is > > the worst-case for a notify approach. > > When you write a file the regular way (not with "echo's", which > open/closes the file for every line), fam/dnotify "only" slows > file-writing down by about factor 2. Test-utility attached. > > Alexander, another question: Do you think i should continue developing > nonotify? I have the feeling that anything less sophisticated than > dnotify&events won't get accepted anyway. > > The problem is how to bring the dcontents_mtime timestamp to userspace. [...] btw, does the mtime timestamp suffice ? What if the file changes, but the last time the file was changed was less that half a second ago ? Maybe I'm missing something though... cheers, Danny
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil